Hey guys,
This is a question that’s been lingering in my head for quite some time now. Every year it’s always the same schools that get the amazing ATARs and I’m curious to know why. What differentiates grammar schools from public schools? Is it better teaching? More resources? (This is excluding selective schools btw because obviously they’re gonna do well)
So yeah, if you know or even better if you’ve had experience at a grammar school, please enlighten me :)
Something that hasn't been brought up yet - academically oriented students are also much more attracted to these schools. I know quite a number of people who go to private schools who do not come from financially well-off families, and are either on full/partial scholarship or their parents literally have to scrape together every cent, even go into debt so their kids can go to a good school. And these kids are under much more pressure to do well as to not waste their parents' efforts, and also many would be under the pressure to do well to go to a good university and get a good job to help their parents later in life (esp. immigrant families).100% agree. The pressure from immigrant parents is real, and there's also the aspect of not wanting to disappoint them or those around you who have such high expectations. I don't go to a grammar school and never have, but I know people who do, and contrary to popular belief, not all of these students come from very affluent backgrounds with no 'issues'. Obviously, there is a subset of the student population who do fit this criterion, but there are a significant number of students like me and you, or who aren't rich but can afford such schooling, or those who perhaps are on a scholarship, or like milander has said, struggle to pay for the fees but do so anyway for the education. This isn't to say that grammar schools are the only schools with academically oriented students - all types of students probably exist in most schools, albeit in differing proportions. I would say it is this academic mindset leads to them doing well, in some cases aided by 'amazing' teachers and resources.
Of course, not saying what everyone has already brought up doesn't apply. But 'they have more money and less issues' is a very shallow way of looking at it. Regardless of what school you go to, it's still going to take an insane amount of effort to get a 99+ atar.
Thank you for all your input guys. I think our education system needs a lot of work, a person's financial status really shouldn't dictate the quality of education they receive. It's interesting how it has a lot to do with one's mindset and social environment though. With the tutoring argument, I've heard that a lot of high-achievers did not take tutoring. Does tutoring really make a difference?Where have you heard that "a lot of high-achievers did not take tutoring"?
(This is excluding selective schools btw because obviously they’re gonna do well)
The Index of Community Socio-educational Advantage (ICSEA) is a scale of socio-educational advantage that is computed for each school [...] ICSEA values are calculated on a scale which has a median of 1000 and a standard deviation of 100. ICSEA values typically range from approximately 500 (representing extremely educationally disadvantaged backgrounds) to about 1300 (representing schools with students with very educationally advantaged backgrounds). ACARA calculates an ICSEA value for all schools for which sufficient aggregate-level data is available.source for data
With the tutoring argument, I've heard that a lot of high-achievers did not take tutoring. Does tutoring really make a difference?I disagree, I think the opposite is true. Almost everyone at my school does tutoring for at least 1 subject (most for multiple, and there are also people who have multiple tutors for one subject). Although there are quite a number of high-achievers that don't do tutoring, there is a very large proportion that does. This also correlates to the SES argument that those that go to grammar/private/selective schools are more likely to be in a financial position to afford tutoring. Whether tutoring actually makes a difference is a whole other story that might not be relevant to the topic at hand.
I can't really add much more to the conversation, but just going to quickly comment a bit in regards to this bit.I don't believe this is due to the schools being selective, but rather the locations and socioeconomic nature of the suburbs they're located in. There's a trend where the closer towards the city you get, the higher the ICSEA value of the school. MHS and MGHS having the highest out of all selective schools and being the closest to the city, while the further out you get the lower the ICSEA value gets. You notice this trend too in NHS, SCHS, JMSS (1139) and EBSS (1144).
Students from selective schools tend to be from a bit of a wealthier background. This means that some of the factors that make grammar schools tick (SES background being a big one) also apply to selective schools. I've put the below in a spoiler tag so I don't get too off-topic, but thought it was good to note that they aren't dissimilar 🐢selective school stuffsource for data
ICSEA Values of VCE Selective Schools + distribution of parental wealth (sorted into quartiles)
Melbourne High School:
(https://i.imgur.com/j9RvBl9.png)
MacRobertson Girls High School:
(https://i.imgur.com/sq3B4xH.png)
Nossal High School:
(https://i.imgur.com/WOAXvnD.png)
Suzanne Cory High School:
(https://i.imgur.com/TXHY7xa.png)
With the tutoring argument, I've heard that a lot of high-achievers did not take tutoring. Does tutoring really make a difference?
I disagree, I think the opposite is true. Almost everyone at my school does tutoring for at least 1 subject (most for multiple, and there are also people who have multiple tutors for one subject). Although there are quite a number of high-achievers that don't do tutoring, there is a very large proportion that does.
I agree that a person's financial status should decide if a person does well at school or not. Although I don't do to a grammar/private school, my parents give me as much opportunity as someone who goes there. My parents are quite strict and make me go tutoring for most of my subjects. If your parents are committed enough and willing to splash some money on tutoring then you should still be able to do well, even if you go to a well below average school. Even if you can't afford tutoring then maybe buy some practice exams for like $60 and study from there. Tbh I don't think parents can be so bad to a point where they can't afford really basic stuff, it is really a matter of saving up a bit. Who agrees with me?
I agree that a person's financial status should decide if a person does well at school or not. Although I don't do to a grammar/private school, my parents give me as much opportunity as someone who goes there. My parents are quite strict and make me go tutoring for most of my subjects. If your parents are committed enough and willing to splash some money on tutoring then you should still be able to do well, even if you go to a well below average school. Even if you can't afford tutoring then maybe buy some practice exams for like $60 and study from there. Tbh I don't think parents can be so bad to a point where they can't afford really basic stuff, it is really a matter of saving up a bit. Who agrees with me?I don't think many students are aware of the dire financial circumstances others around them may be facing. There is a significant population who are unable to afford extended tuition services for their children and private/grammar schooling. An unfortunate reality of the Australian schooling system and systems in many other countries is that affluence opens more doors in terms of education. Those in a higher income bracket have the opportunity to choose from a wider variety of schools compared to those who earn less (there is also the fact that these parents are more likely to emphasise the importance of academics, but this is a different story). This is not because these parents are 'bad', but because they have less choice regarding this matter. It is a widely held belief that financial status should not play a role in the quality of education, however, there has been no move to erase this sort of inequality from the education system, and I unfortunately doubt it will be changed in the near future. It is not a debate on how committed these parents are, it is the prioritisation of things like securing a house and ensuring that weekly expenses are paid to ensure these needs are met before they are able to even consider education. Although you may not be exposed to students in such situations, they definitely do exist, and in differing levels of financial potential. Saying it is a matter of just 'saving up a bit' may be a bit too much of an oversimplification of the pervasive difficulties faced by these families around Australia.
I agree that a person's financial status should decide if a person does well at school or not. Although I don't do to a grammar/private school, my parents give me as much opportunity as someone who goes there. My parents are quite strict and make me go tutoring for most of my subjects. If your parents are committed enough and willing to splash some money on tutoring then you should still be able to do well, even if you go to a well below average school. Even if you can't afford tutoring then maybe buy some practice exams for like $60 and study from there. Tbh I don't think parents can be so bad to a point where they can't afford really basic stuff, it is really a matter of saving up a bit. Who agrees with me?I very much agree with ashmi and whys. Life happens and even if other people can't envision a situation where even $60 practice exams is beyond financial reach, it happens and there are people who struggle with and are living with that. Most of us can't imagine that difficulty and we are very privileged. But there are people who have to choose between tutoring/books or basic needs and of course they will choose the latter.
Sorry if my comments came out as a bit mean, I do understand that some people just have to prioritise the basics first and everything after. I am understand that sometimes exams costing a bit of money can be well out of reach for many parents, I am so sorry to those students in those situations and it is certainly not there fault. I always promised myself one day if I finish VCE and get a good study score, I will create resources for those who can't afford it. I understand not everyone is as fortunate as me/you/us and that is why atar notes exist we all help each other. My public school is an average one, but the neighbouring public schools are really bad. My school is around 200-ish and some schools around me are around 400-500+ YET some people there still score a study score of 50. It is possible to do well at any school, tbh you don't need money to do well if you are really committed and look around for free resources. One day when you guys finish school and do well will you promise to help out those who aren't fortunate? I want to write practice exams for the disadvantage kids.
Well, VCAA does attempt to address these inequities by boosting people's selection ranks with SEAS. However, of course, I don't know enough about SEAS to be able to give anything insightful as to whether it provides a huge impact to those in difficult circumstances - I have heard of people's selection ranks being boosted by almost 10 ATAR points though.Oh SEAS completely slipped my mind... I go to a low SES school so I am eligible for SEAS and yes you are right in that I do get a 'boost' if my I do not meet the required ATAR. If I get an ATAR of 86, I can potentially get into a course that requires 90-91. I have heard of others where the increase is higher, especially in those in difficult circumstances.
Also, apart from the discussion centred around the ability to afford tutoring and educational resources, here's some more food for thought - the fact that there's a deeply embedded cycle within low SES communities. If you think about it, if a student's parents were unemployed, or maybe struggling financially, I doubt that the focus of the student would be on studying i.e. in these circumstances the value of education is lower since there are most pressing issues to attend to. In most of these families, the students are pushed to enter the workforce early instead of pursuing tertiary education (hence, a high ATAR doesn't really mean anything to them), and start providing and this endless cycle will simply keep occurring. I know that not everyone will agree with this mentality - in particularly, those with immigrant parents (not excluding others though), but that's simply because there's a different value and perspective on education. (e.g. in some schools, studying hard might make you the 'nerd' of the year level, but in others, studying hard is looked favourably upon and you're more like a 'god')I second this. While not particularly prominent in Australia, education inequality and the problem with America's SATs are highlighted in this video. I know we are deviating from the original discussion but the video highlights how high SAT scores are usually a result of a wealthy financial background which in turn results into entrance to a more prestigious college which in turn results into a higher income. The same occurs in a poorer financial background where they go to community colleges (less prestigious colleges) resulting in a considerably less annual income. This results in a cycle of inequality. Of course, here in Australia, we are lucky that college entrance is not indicated by a single test but just highlights the huge role socio-economic background (unfortunately) plays in academic performance.
I must agree with whys on this bit. Nearly everyone at my school too does some form of tutoring, in fact, at my school, you would be part of a minority if you didn't get tutored in at least one subject. (By the way, I go to a government school and have never been to a private/grammar before. If someone does go to a private/grammar school and wants to share their experiences that would be great to hear!)
Where have you heard that "a lot of high-achievers did not take tutoring"?For example, this thread:
Do students need tutoring to succeed in the HSC?
(HSC Related, but very relevant to the VCE still)
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-question/do-students-need-tutoring-to-succeed-in-the-hsc-20111014-1loyq.html#ixzz1awasrT82
I must agree with whys on this bit. Nearly everyone at my school too does some form of tutoring, in fact, at my school, you would be part of a minority if you didn't get tutored in at least one subject. (By the way, I go to a government school and have never been to a private/grammar before. If someone does go to a private/grammar school and wants to share their experiences that would be great to hear!)Wow, I actually had no idea. It's hard to know when you're not in that environment. My belief was that high-achievers wouldn't necessarily need a tutor if they're already comfortable with the content.
A good amount of high-achievers from my school or friends in general who tended to have higher ATARs did do some tutoring to help them get there. I mean, tutoring impacts those in different ways, could be both beneficial or an overall negative impact depending on the individual themselves
For example, this thread:Wow, I actually had no idea. It's hard to know when you're not in that environment. My belief was that high-achievers wouldn't necessarily need a tutor if they're already comfortable with the content.hmm I didn't really read the thread in full but skimmed parts of it. I think the question's they were posing were not too consistent. It kind of altered between do high achievers get tutoring and the efficacy of tutoring. These are completely different questions.
I hadn't thought of quite a few other points that were raised actually so thanks for sharing guys. It's a much bigger issue than I had anticipated...
A common narrative here is that wealthy schools provide a better standard of education and that students at these schools have more access to extracurricular opportunities, especially tutoring. This seems perfectly logical; however, when this proposition is tested it doesn't hold up. Almost all of the variation in grades can be explained by socioeconomic status. One's school actually has very little impact, meaning that a wealthy kid in a crap school tends to do as well as a wealthy kid in a wealthy school. This is particularly true of high-performing students, who tend to perform well wherever they go.But isn’t the reason wealthy kids do well wherever they go is because they have access to these extracurricular activities? Why is it that high-performers do well wherever they go, is it simply a matter of mindset and drive?
Shamefully, these issues are compounded when students from low SES backgrounds are all shoved together in the same under resourced settings that are expected to provide an education in the context of dealing with these extraneous issues that impede education.Again, isn’t the fact that the school is under-resourced which places students at a disadvantage? Could you please elaborate on why diversity can help these students, I’m not sure I understand what you meant by that.
But isn’t the reason wealthy kids do well wherever they go is because they have access to these extracurricular activities? Why is it that high-performers do well wherever they go, is it simply a matter of mindset and drive?Those from high SES backgrounds would still have access to resources/extracurriculars that other students may not have regardless of the type of school they go to. There is a reason students from "high-performing" schools still go to tutors (and I would think a much higher rate than students from other schools).
Again, isn’t the fact that the school is under-resourced which places students at a disadvantage? Could you please elaborate on why diversity can help these students, I’m not sure I understand what you meant by that.
There is a reason students from "high-performing" schools still go to tutors (and I would think a much higher rate than students from other schools).What is that “reason”? What you’ve said doesn’t align with what vox nihili mentioned about the access to extracurricular opportunities argument not holding up.
I think your assumption is kind of reversed e.g. you assume "high-performing: is intrinsic and those students happen to be from high SES backgrounds. When it is the high SES background which allows someone to perform better.
What is that “reason”? What you’ve said doesn’t align with what vox nihili mentioned about the access to extracurricular opportunities argument not holding up.The "reason" is that many high-performing students have the money to afford tutoring as many of them come from high SES backgrounds. A wealthy student has access to extra-curriculars, tutoring etc because they have the money to spend on that, so despite being in a bad school, they are still able to perform relatively well, because such resources do not only come from the school.
The "reason" is that many high-performing students have the money to afford tutoring as many of them come from high SES backgrounds. A wealthy student has access to extra-curriculars, tutoring etc because they have the money to spend on that, so despite being in a bad school, they are still able to perform relatively well, because such resources do not only come from the school.+1
they do not take into consideration other factors apart from just school and money.